Warning: Spoilers!

The Usual Suspects is an excellent film, correctly celebrated for its non-linear structure and unreliable narrator. But it’s also a fascinating look at male anxiety in the way the characters are consistently calling into question each others’ sexuality and masculinity. As the Suspects themselves jockey to out-man each other Verbal Kint/Keyser Soze looks on showing the virtue of thought and ambiguity amid the cock-fights. It’s an anxiety that seems increasingly pervasive in male-culture, finding angry expression in communities such as Red Pill or in humorous social comment in #masculinitysofragile?. It’s with great prescience that Chris McQuarrie’s script for The Usual Suspects explores this.

Throughout the film the threat of loss of masculinity is ever present, with the possibility of passivity (especially in the sense of sexual penetration) seen as the greatest fear. Not so much death for McManus, Hockney, Fenster and Keaton but buggery as the ultimate humiliation. Their strength is seen in terms of this, their unwillingness to “bend over for anybody” in Kint’s terms. They tease and threaten each other with penetration (Fenster to Hockney “Hey lover boy, you wanna piece?”, McManus to Hockney “You wanna dance with a man for a change?”) When Keaton is arrested he’s told he’s not a business man, “From now on, you’re in the gettin’-fucked-by-us business.” Bending over, being fucked is the greatest threat. Is it any wonder these men grip their guns so tightly throughout the film? This constant reassurance of their masculinity, the acceptable cinematic phallus helps define, and protect them

Except that it doesn’t. They are all undone by the most passive one of them all. One who talks rather than acts, who hurts and plans. Is it any coincidence that Verbal states that “I’ll probably shit blood tonight” having been punched by Keaton, revealing his own penetrability (unsurprisingly anal). Agent Kujan tries to dominate him mentally and physically, but its his own status as a “cripple” and a “gimp” (which means both disabled and a sexual submissive) that give him an advantage. It’s beyond these men, and their physical anxiety, to understand that they can be controlled by talk, not physicality, that passivity can be controlling.

Fundamentally this is the fear of the feminine (passive, talking, penetrated) that has taken root in our culture since the Victorian era – it’s created a binary opposition where attitudes and qualities accrue on either side and slippage isn’t possible. It’s beyond anyone in the film to see that Verbal Kint could move across boundaries, have qualities from either groups. It’s a division especially riven into US culture from the Western in which masculinity is held superior for its silence, action and ruggedness, with women connected to the home and hearth but also the emasculating forces of civilization.

Oddly it reminds of the classical split between Rome and Greece, and the USA is often compared to Rome. The Greeks had Odysseus praised for his wiles and planning, his cunning and speech. For the Romans he became Ulysses a treacherous man, whose deceit was an un-Roman quality. It may not be un-linked that the Greeks were more interested in sex between men. We don’t know whether Alexander the Great was a top, but it’s clear in the Illiad that Achilles was a bottom.

Classical diversions aside The Usual Suspects suggests the current growing anxiety in some men about their gender – that any quality that aligns them with women/homosexuality is to be driven away. Ironically, this leads to their downfall. Turns out their masculinity is fragile, rather like a Kobayashi mug.

Academic conferences can be a bit of a mixed bag. There’s the focus (does it have one), the speakers and, perhaps most importantly, the coffee. Well DMU, and in particular IQ Hunter, excelled themselves with the Jaws Symposium. By focusing on one film it ensured that the papers were relevant and that each panel made sense in itself, as well as for the wider day. It’s difficult, and unfair, to pick out specific speakers but I will mention that both key notes (Murray Pomerance and Nigel Morris) were very good and that a whole host of new ideas were thrown about – including some excellent myth busting about the film. Yes it’s important – but not always for the reasons we’re told in the text books. The highlight of the day was undoubtedly the Skype chat with Carl Gottlieb who gave some great background on the film and laid to rest a few more lingering myths, chiefly the idea that John Milius wrote the Indianapolis speech (he didn’t – it was a combination of Gottlieb, Howard Sackler and Quint himself, Robert Shaw). He also, graciously, answered my query about whether being on the opposite sea-board to Hollywood allowed the film-makers an extra freedom (and the ability to get away with all the problems the production is famous for) – the simple answer was yes.

We heard about Jaws’ place in cinema history, the epiphenomena surrounding the film, links to childhood and sexuality, ideas on the masochistic process of cinema and much more. Also lunch was good. And it’s always great to hear Peter Kramer’s laugh. See you in another 40.

I know I’m bending the rules by putting a TV show on the blog, but Columbo is really a series of Movies, just TV Movies. Besides Spielberg directed a couple.

Anyway, I’m a Columbo fan. It’s a great way to while away a quiet afternoon watching the excellent, and sadly departed, Peter Falk trick another unsuspecting big shot into thinking he’s an idiot, when all the while he’s working the whole thing out. It’s structurally entertaining, shifting the drama to a battle of wits, by revealing the murderer’s identity in the first third, rather than following the traditional structure laid down by Agatha Christie, et al. It also contains some wonderful cameos, with each episode throwing us another Hollywood name who is either on their uppers, or just enjoyed the fun of the role.

What occurred to me the other day was the realization that it wasn’t just the show’s structure that made it different – it was its politics. Here is a mainstream American show that espouses a Marxist viewpoint (bear with me). Each episode of Columbo begins with a member of high society (the bourgeoisie) committing what they think is the perfect murder. The motive is invariably for financial gain, for the acquisition of capital. In walks Columbo, a classic member of the proletariat. He dresses badly, has a terrible car, and seems oblivious to the codes of behavior of ‘high society’. But through application of thought alone, and using his shabby status to expose the prejudices of the bourgeoisie (how could such a scruffy man possibly represent a threat?) he exposes the hollow, money grabbing elite for what they are. The show flips the assumptions of Capitalist society, that worth only comes through acquisition of capital, and shows how capitalist desire leads to an abandonment of moral principals. Columbo is above all a moral figure, loyal to his job, his wife and his dog. Set against this are the money grabbers, willing to kill anyone who comes in the way of their advancement.

PS. It’s also an example of the Daoist idea of the virtue of the small. Read the Te of Piglet by Benjamin Hoff for more of this.

As a teacher of film I get asked, from time to time, what books should be read about film. We’ll here’s my top 5,

Adventures in the Screen Trade, by William Goldman: very insightful and funny book about being a writer in Hollywood, written at a time when Goldman was number one.

Scenes from a Revolution, by Mark Harris: A brilliant work about the transition from the final days of the Studio System to new Hollywood. Provides fascinating insight into the race relations in America of the time.

Film as Social Practice, by Graeme Turner: a concise and accessible introduction to the basics of film study – could get you through the first year of a degree.

Men, Women, and Chainsaws, by Carol Clover: excellent overview of horror films, that gives a top discussion on the role gender plays.

Shepperton Babylon, by Mathew Sweet: A treasure trove of info about the oft-neglected British film Industry.

What is it with kids in horror? I was re-watching Orphan the other day (which is a bit silly but good fun) and my mind got to thinking about all the horror movies that use kids, or the idea of kids as a motif for horror. The furthest back I can go is Village of the Damned (1960), based on John Wyndham’s Midwich Cuckoos. In it, and it’s rather good, a village experiences a collective black out. Two months later all the women are pregnant, giving birth to advanced, telepathic, super-intelligent kids with malicious intent. Later movies prey on our fears both of and for our kids; Rosemary’s Baby plays excellently on anxieties about birth (after all you never really know what will come out…); The Omen suggests rampant evil; Don’t Look Now allows the child figure to be both one of mourning and haunting; The Shining threatens kids and shows them as threatening. The list could go on but it asks a question of the audience – why are children being used as sites for such terror. After all aren’t they all innocent? Maybe – but children, particularly in their pre-linguistic state, are little id monsters, desire unrestrained. Part of growing up is the development of a conscience. Somewhere we’ve developed a neurotic fear about the potential of unregulated childhood – somewhere they became the enemy. Perhaps it’s linked to the manichean view of childhood held in the press, in which they’re little angels to be defended from abusers (who lurk everywhere apparently), or demon children terrorizing grannies. Or perhaps children are just scary because of their potential – what we might make them. Films displace this into external forces, but deep down we know we make the monsters.

There are two main ways to position the camera in a film. Subjective takes the side of a character – the classic subjective camera shot is the Point of View shot. In a subjective system we tend to follow a single character and the narrative unfolds from their point of view. In an objective system we are more like impartial observers watching the events unfold. Hit the video for more info.